Appx Reading Time: 10 Minutes.

Recently (and I have now completely forgotten exactly how), I came by a video on Youtube, posted by "Kerrigan Skelly" entitled "Refuting Calvinism - Romans 9".  That led me to other videos of his in which I learned a bit more about this fellow - namely, that he is one of the "stop sinning" crowd.  One of the other videos that came up in this quest was one entitled something to the effect of "Mark Kielar and Lane Chaplin Are Lying about Charles Finney".

Since I've written on Finney before, I always find it kind of interesting to see what new spin or what new angle people can put on the work of Finney, so I checked it out.  It was my intention, at first, to address the "Romans Nine" video, which instead I will do later (as well as the "stop sinning" doctrine), and take up this one as my first intersection with Skelly.

The Executive Summary.  If you can sit through a 45 minute video, but cannot spend 10 minutes reading, then here's the concise version of this article: 

The accusation is made that people are lying, but all they are doing is quoting what other people have said.  Disagreement is not the same thing as lying. Skelly's evidence is not a factual exclamation, but an emotional plea ("God used this man to do a mighty work for the Kingdom"), even though the "mighty works" are highly subjective (ie, "They are 'mighty' because, golly, Skelly says they are mighty...").  And anyone who doubts or differs on this is "lying." 

Finney was a self-contradicting heretic, through and through.  A wolf in sheep's clothing who ravaged large portions of the Church in the 1800's leaving chaos and destruction in his wake.  A prolific writer, he wrote so much (often legalistic, man centered, self-contradictory, and cryptic) that any hope of "getting the full context of his writings" is all but impossible, and what of it you can get reveals his theology to be merely humanism and franco-rationalism parading in religious clothing. 

The man was a heretic, and basically, I hate his guts...  ;-)  And feel free to quote Matt 5:43 if you wish.

The first thing I had to do was track down the original video that Skelly was claiming was was "not just one lie, or the title being a lie, but the whole video just being FULL of lies..." 

Since a great number of people today, it seems, do not know what really constitutes a lie, I usually find that when people are flying the "nothing but lies" flag, they generally mean "I disagree, therefore you are lying."  So I didn't expect much from the video, and, frankly, I wasn't disappointed.

Skelly, in his presentation, was indistinguishable from another zealous "defender of the truth", Monica Dennington, on whose message to Calvinists I briefly touched recently.  Like Dennington as she points out how liars (and others who do not subscribe to her particular belief system) are an abomination to God and will have their place in the lake of fire, and they need to repent, ... so does Skelly.

According to him, Lane Chaplin has done nothing but propagate lies, via a Mark Kielar proxy, and continues to do so even after being (ahem) soundly rebuked by none less than Mr. Skelly himself.

So, I went to find the original video that sparked the controversy, ready to make a complete list of things that might qualify as these alleged lies, and see whether I might lend any defense or assistance (or perhaps find that the charge was true and add my call on Lane to repent). 

The video I found was entitled "Salvation is a work of man - Charles Grandison Finney". 

And here is where it gets interesting. 

If this is in fact the video in question, then:

Throughout the video, I cannot find a place where Kielar even makes an assertion of any premise; let alone afford an opportunity to lie, with a possible exception being the claim, by Kielar, that similar tactics and results are being seen in the church today.  And if he is asserting that, I'd have to say I agree wholeheartedly.

The video is, from beginning to end, nothing more than a series of collected QUOTES of things other people had said about Finney - and they are mostly contemporaries of Finney himself.  So... the only opportunity I can find for Kielar to even suggest a lie is if the material he is quoting is purely fabricated; ie, made up!  Or, if it were substantially altered in some way.

But it's not.  All the quotes that Kielar introduced are readily referential, and can be found in numerous sources.  I myself have quoted Albert Dodd when discussing Finney. 

Is Skelly suggesting that Dodd has NOT said those things that he quoted? If all you are going to do is take every reference, and every source presented to you simply claim that they are ALL lying... Well, there's not much that can be done to help you, I'm afraid.

In case there is any doubt; and because the video is relatively short (just 11 minutes), here is a complete timeline:

00:00 - 01:15  Kielar says that the "altar call" is a relatively new experience in the church and church history up until about the 1820's did not use any such mechanism.  This is confirmed by a simple perusal of church history.  And further confirmed by the very fact that Finney, himself, claims to be the author of these "New Measures" (as he termed his new invention). 

The fact that the "Altar Call" is Finney's own invention, and therefore unprecedented before the early to mid 1800's, is made abundantly clear by the fact that it created a seething controversy in the entire continental Church, with pastors and preachers of nearly all denominations (with the possible exception of the Methodists) roundly criticising him from all angles; a controversey in which Finney claimed he, and he alone, was the author of and the only true holder of right doctrine in all of Christ's church. 

When his "New Measures" were questioned by his fellow labourers, he responded with a bombastic "No doubt God is holding the rod of war over this nation; the nation is under His displeasure, because the church has conducted in such a manner with respect to these revivals..."  (ie, MY revivals... the New Measures, Altar Calls, extended emotionally charged meetings, the "Anxious Seat", etc, which he taught and introduced).

So, for the first minute and a quarter, Kielar simply points out that the New Measures are just that: NEW.  And they are called NEW by Finney Himself, who claimed to be the author of them, and which took place in the Early 1800's.  "Less than", as Kielar Says "two hundred years ago."  That makes the "New measures", well.... uhm.... uh.... NEW!

Finney is universally recognized as "The Father of Modern Revivalism" - a fact so well known that even secular sources such as Wikipedia know it.  Finney himself claims it is new because he himself named the movement "The NEW Measures."  That isn't a label slapped on him by critics.  That's a self applied nomenclature! 

The conclusion is that "the NEW Measures" were, in fact, NEW, novel, and unheard of in the Church prior to the 1980's, barring coincidental aberrant behaviour one would expect to find when sampling any large demographic.  The "Shakers", for instance, come to mind.  But Finney institutionalized and formalized this aberrant behaviour into a new norm that was widely adopted as orthodox and the standard norm, and which was equally as widely recognized as NEW.  And that is exactly what Kielar said.

01:15 - 02:10  Kielar states (reiterates) pretty much what I just stated above.

2:10 - 03:20  Kielar quotes and explains Albert Dodd.

The quote he uses is not cited.  This is, unfortunately, very common in a "video gospel" world where footnotes and citation references cannot be easily handled like they can in print. 

However, the quote is very much in keeping with a work that can be cited, which is Dodd's "Revivals of Religion", published in 1835, which states pretty much the exact same thing, repeatedly, over the course of some 40 pages.  The letter was written in conjunction with several other contemporaries of Finney, and discussed Finney's early 1800's experiences with the "New measures" in great detail, and is itself based upon a review of Finney's own "Lectures on Revival."

Note: Some critics of this video have focused on Kielar saying that Finney did something in 1820, when in fact, he did not start using the New Measures until roughly the mid 1820's. 

However, the video makes it clear that Kielar simply misspoke, because three other times in the immediate context, when speaking of the same subject, and the same Albert Dodd quote, he references the period he is speaking of as either "the 1820's", or just simply "the early 1800's" - which of course would be a perfectly accurate thing to say.  "The 1820's equally encompasses 1820 as it does 1823.

03:20 - 03:50 Kielar quotes Finney, and explains.

The quote he is using is taken from a Lecture entitled "Views of Sanctification" in which Finney states (as quoted by Kielar):

...I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith. But falling short of urging them up to a point where they would become so acquainted with Christ, as to abide in him, they would of course soon relapse again into their former state.

Again, a video presentation does not allow the technical accuracies of a print presentation in which the elipses can be employed to indicate that a quote is being picked up already in progress.

In this case, again, critics have argued that Kielar is "lying" because he started the quote in mid-sentence.  I can accept that criticism as somewhat valid, however, it does not even come close to rising to the level of a "lie" as it lacks the requisite "intent to deceive". 

The sentence begins "While I inculcated the common views,..." as though that substantially changes anything - which is most certainly does not. 

For one thing, no matter what the views he was teaching, it does not alter or change the conclusion, which Finney himself admits: those drawn in by his emotional plea were shallow root converts who fell away as soon as the artificially induced excitement wore off.  

And secondly, at no time did Finney ever teach the "common views", and the quote, as presented, from Finney's own words on the matter, reveal the problem: "acquaintance with Christ" will NEVER produce Faith, because the Bible (ie, "the REAL common view") teaches that Faith is a work of the Holy Spirit ALONE, and is NOT a work of man, or man's "urgings", no matter how forceful or vehement.

03:50 - 04:50 Kielar quotes a contemporary of Finney, who points out that Finney's work ultimately led to no real, lasting converts at all.

This contemporary is not named in the video, but it is a trivial matter, with the golden age of the internet, to find the reference.  Which in this case turns out to be Joseph Foot.  Foot writes, quoting Finney's own words, in the text of his writing.  He is not quoting Finney, but rather is using something Finney certainly said as part of his statement. 

It's simpler if you just see it.

What Finney Said was this:

I believe they were genuine revivals of religion and outpourings of the Holy Ghost, that the church has enjoyed the last ten years. I believe the converts of the last ten years are among the best Christians in the land. Yet, after all, the great body of them are a disgrace to religion.

What Foot made of it was this:

During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that his real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by himself, that "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion;..."

Finney clearly, and plainly refers to his "converts" as almost entirely "a disgrace to religion." In other words, they fell away shortly after the excitement wore off.  And the fact that Finney completely contradicts himself here should be noted.  How are they "genuine revivals of the holy spirit"... and, how can they be "the best Christians in the land" and also be "complete disgrace to religion?"

But the point I am making here is, again, that there is no occasion for a "lie" here because what Kielar quotes is in fact what Foot said.  You may not like it.  You may disagree with Joseph Foot, but Kielar did not lie about what the man said, and the man was in fact a contemporary of Finney, just as he claimed.

However, even given that, there are numerous other's - of Finney's own time - who made the same observation, the exact same observation, who noted that in the wake of Finney's "NEW Measures", not only were there no converts, but entire churches were utterly destroyed, pastor and all, and left in utter chaos - a vacuum into which the world quickly swooped in and devoured the remains.  And these are named sources - not anonymous quotes.  These contemporaries of Finney frequently criticised the results published in the Oberlin Review for exactly these reasons. 

None of this, so far, is conjecture, or assertion, or claim, or anything that might lend an opportunity for a lie - these are all simply quotes of things that were said, at the time, and all are easily referenced by anyone who can type "google.com" in a URL.

04:50 - 05:34  Kielar quotes a fellow worker with Finney, who also criticises Finney's NEW Measures.

Again, the name is not cited, but it is Joseph Boyle, writing in 1834, and the quote is given accurately.

Only a few months after Finney had left the area, Boyle stated,

"I have revisited many of these fields where we laboured and groaned in spirit to see the sad, frigid, casual, contentious state into which the churches had fallen..."

Again, no lie.  The quote is accurate.  Again, you may not like the quote.  You may disagree with the quote.  You may hate Boyle's guts... But that is what the man said, and he was a contemporary (and co-revivalist) of Finney.

05:35 - 06:20 Kielar quotes Bill Hybels noting how the same results from Finney's "New Measures" are playing out right now in Willow Creek church.

06:20 - 08:45 Kielar quotes B.B. Warfield, who quotes Asa Mahan, who relates how Finney's New Measures resulted in mayhem in churches following Finney's work in their area. And he notes how that same effect is now taking place in the Church.

08:45 - 09:50 Kielar now demonstrates how all the material quoted before can be seen in the evangelical church in America today. 

Perhaps there is the opportunity to be mistaken; but so far there is no opportunity to LIE, as he has not made any assertion of his own.  He is simply quoting the words and observations of others, all of them from Finney's own fellow pastors and preachers.

09:50 - 11:00 (end)  Kielar makes the quote that I think has sparked the cry of "Lies!" from Skelly.  "Salvation is the work of man!"

To which, I will simply add my own Charles Finney quote.

From the very first sentence,
of the very first paragraph,
of Finney's own
"What A Revival Of Religion Is":

QUOTE:

"RELIGION (ie, salvation) IS THE WORK OF MAN...
It is something for MAN TO DO..."

And, almost as if he sensed the error he just made, he begins his own spin control.  "Sure, God influences them.  He suggests as strongly as He possibly can..." etc.  He paints a picture of God being unable to secure, with divine finality, because his plan is thwarted by the stubborn mind of man.  I'll cover this in much more detail when I get around to addressing the "stop sinning" nonsense.

I addressed that entire treatise of Finney's in another article here, as well as other Finney heresies here, if you care to read more on it, but I will quote some of it here, as I continue.

But, before I continue, a word to Mr. Skelly:  Learn what a "lie" is.  To be mistaken is one thing (and Kielar is not even mistaken - he's accurately quoted what his sources did in fact say).  But it is not a lie.  Unless it was done knowingly, and with the intent to deceive, then it is not a lie.  And, as I alluded to before, simply resorting to yelling "liar, liar, pants on fire" every time someone disagrees with you only makes you look like a fool.  If you want to retort, "at least I'm a fool for Christ, whose fool are you?" then go ahead.  I will tell you exactly whose fool I am - and how, and why.

If you are a Christian who believes that Jesus Christ took upon himself your sin, and on the cross paid the penalty for your sin, thereby giving you free access to the throne of God by his own death on the cross in your place....

... then you should know that Charles Finney thinks you are believing what he, himself called a "theological fiction".  According to Finney, the only thing Christ purchased on that cross was his own atonement (and I have yet to see him explain what Christ needed to atone for) and his own access to the throne, and otherwise, all his death on that cross was, was a demonstration of how much God hates sin, and what will happen to you if you do not repent.

To Finney's mind, God works entirely on the basis of influences and suggestions.  All that he (God) does is merely an attempt to get man to wake up and smell the coffee - except of course, anyone drinking coffee, or tea, or soda, [or eating tomatoes or bell peppers 'cause they have caffiene too] is going straight to hell, according to him.

Finney believed in judging scriptures first against what he calls "irresistable convictions", in spite of scripture's plain warnings to "lean not on your understanding", and "there is a way that seems right to man", and "cursed is he that trusts in the wisdom of man", etc etc.

To Finney, Revival and religion and salvation are nothing more than the natural result of the right applied technology (his "New Measures").  It is his own claim that there is nothing miraculous about such revival. That when the right techniques are applied, the right result is gauranteed.

The man is self contradictory all the time, but one good example is this:

In explaining what must be done to achieve "revival":

"Knowledge, to avail any thing..., must be such as will influence the mind. The will must be controlled. And to do this, the mind must have such a view of things as to excite emotion... A pure abstraction of the intellect, that does not touch the feelings, or excite any emotion, is wholly unavailable to move the will... You must bring the mind under a degree of excitement, to influence the will... you must have a great degree of light, such as will powerfully excite the mind, and produce strong emotions."

And then, in another place:

"...How are we to know whether it is the Spirit of God that influences our minds?

...by not by feeling that some external influence is being applied to us...."

What?  In the end, God wins through trickery and deceit?  You have to manipulate men's emotions to influence their minds, but they shouldn't be aware that you are doing it?  Isn't that evil?  That bit about "the will must be controlled" is just plain creepy!  This sort of inconsistent thinking permeates his work, through and through - it's absolutely EVERYWHERE. 

It's no wonder confusion and destruction followed in his wake, every place that he went.

People who are quick to resort to "you must consider the whole context of Finney's writings" are people who have obviously not followed their own advice!  You cannot get the whole context of his writings!  Just the basics of his writings - not even including his Systematic Theology - is roughly THREE THOUSANDS PAGES of doublespeak, legaleese, and symantical gymnastics that would boggle the mind!  (And to think Monica Dennington had a coniption because Calvin's Institutes are nearly ONE thousand pages!)

There is no "context" into which you can put

"Religion is the work of man, it is something for man to do..."

that will make it not say what it quite plainly says.

To be continued...